Amazon turns off Parler servers ... will MeWe and others be next? What options do they have?

[UCFBS]

It's like watching the UK as a Merchant Republic all over again some 250 years ago. It's just how these monopolies operate that just happened to control Parliament. The US is way, way up on the list for corruption, we'll above nearly all other developed nations.

Facebook and YouTube accused of complicity in Vietnam repression

Facebook and YouTube accused of complicity in Vietnam repression

Amnesty report accuses sites of openly signalling they will bow to authoritarian regimes

www.google.com

 

[UCFBS]

What is stopping Parler from buying servers, writing code, and setting up their own domain like countless other companies have done in the past without using Google and Amazon's back-end and toolset?

Ummmm, Google and network providers. That's the problem, total monopolization.

Exactly. Amazon and Google provide an infrastructure. It is an infrastructure that many companies can build on their own, but using pre-made infrastructure with pre-built APIs makes it much, much, easier. Nobody is taking away Parler's freedom of speech, they are just making it harder for Parler to use that freedom of speech because they will have to put in the work and investment to do it themselves.

If they cannot find connectivity, and Amazon, Google and others block their propagation, then access doesn't exist.

Not exactly true. Amazon and Google control traffic. Even if they set up their servers, access could be choked or restricted altogether. They basically own access to the internet.

Bingo.

This is true in many industries, and progressives have been screaming about it for years upon years. We always get called "socialists" when we bring up oligopolies, and we're always told to let the free-market work it out.

Republicans suddenly wanting to stop corporate collusion is hysterical. They created the system that allows it to happen continuously!!

Ummmm, we Libertarians have been against all the mega-mergers, the media conglomerates and quickly point to the framers of the US who considered limiting capitalism because it was the trading companies and their control of Parliament that caused the US to be taxed, then suppressed of free speech, then an open revolt as they plan to take over the colonies Crown Charters after they lost.

Remember, much of the early Revolution was fought against corporate troops of various trading companies, at least outside of Boston. More troops of the British crown did not come until a couple years into the war. Even our campaign into Canada, after early successes, stalled when we ran into Hudson Bay Company troops the farther north we got. We miscalculated that the Canadians would revolt with us against the Hudson Bay Company, when the reality is that most who lived that far north were well paid employees or contractors.

Kinda like now. Those of us who have jobs are defending the narrative... the lockdowns, the protests, etc...

People are get to desperate to be heard. Trump's share of the Hispanic and LGBTQ votes actually went up in 2020. Facebook has been banning Conservative LGBTQ and Hispanic groups for alleged hate, minority business owners in Oregon and Minnesota for alleged misinformation, whatever doesn't fit the narrative.

We left a lot of this out of our history books because we didn't want to demonize corporations. But in reality, capitalism dies when monopolies take over and control the legislative government. The framers of the US discussed this, but came to the conclusion that even independent Farmers would still be considered, capitalist entities. Which is why they suggested a Bill of Rights, collected by James Madison from over a hundred submissions from the people. And the number one grievance over and over was the trading company's pushing Parliament to outlaw group voices during the growing dissent.

Remember, the reason why our colonies were taxed is because the military adventurism of all the trading companies and their private armies ended up having to be bailed out by the crown and its troops. Taxation without representation was just the ultimate symptom and it's a lot cleaner of a phrase than to talk about the control of parliament by the monopolies of those trading companies. Especially when the 13 crown charter colonies, corporate commonwealths, were a lot smaller than the much larger trading companies which had far more voice in Parliament via their lobbyists.

Everybody keeps saying this is government controlled corporations when it's the opposite. It's the corporation's controlling Congress, even local States. The lockdown his killed off small businesses but brought record revenues to select corporations, and no one listening to those small businesses. The protests in Minnesota and Oregon ended up burning down a lot of private buildings, many of the inner city, many owned by minorities oh, and no one listened to those small businesses.

The hypocrisy is so thick right now, and the repeat of history 250 years later is unreal. Monopolies and a narrative is dominating, and people feel they have no voice whatsoever to differ. This is not end well oh, but some people want that oh, just like the trading companies wanted to take over the 13 Crown charters and we're happy when Massachusetts rebelled, even though the other twelve wrote the crown saying they were loyal.

I'm not saying this to be 'right.' I'm warning that the more we suppress everyone who wasn't even involved and doesn't even condone the infiltration of Congress, the more we push those people to feel they have no choice but to opposite those who control Congress.

Just like what happened when Parliament ignored the colonies who appealed to the Crown, and wanted peace even after the shooting started, let alone before.

We cannot mass alienate people by labeling the 'separatists.' We cannot nuke their voices wholesale and consider half the country in rebellion.

 

[UCFBS]

Are you suggesting we need some regulation?
Why do you hate free-market Capitalism?

^^^ This is why the left is so thick.

In the last 9 months we have seen the biggest transfer of wealth faster in the shortest period than possibly since the Great Depression.

We have seen government utterly destroy small businesses and completely serve those large industries, from Hollywood to Walmart, get exceptions. The lobby and control, federal, state and elsewhere.

There was a great video of a local business owner who was pointing out to a cop all the virus spreading stupidity a Hollywood production house was doing in front of his business whil he was being fined for re-opening his. It's this level of non-sense, and the absence of common sense, that is driving people bonkers.

Then we have the national media just utterly ignoring the realities, including during the protests. CNN covers a private building getting burned down with minority businesses in it, calling it a government building, so then a minority mob moves on CNN in Atlanta and suddenly its 'violence.'

There are countless videos of these minority business and religious leaders pleading from Minnesota and Oregon to break though the national media narrative as well, to let people know how much harm and losses have occurred to private entities too.

So, if you're a small business owner, who are you going to trust?

The left and their insistence on lockdowns? Or Trump and the right who is trying to stop the sheer transfer of wealth to the monopolies?

I really hate Trump, and wanted him to conceded the second the Electoral College voted mid-December. But no, he had to turn this into a load of crap that eventually led to the takeover of the Capitol building. That was dead wrong.

But I'm honestly tired of the left saying this is free market, when it's anything but. It's absolutely lobbyist controlled government, and everyone is sick of it.

Trump was never the answer. People who have never looked to him. But damn if he didn't tried to fight the destruction of this country's by monopolies and large corporations who could lobby for exceptions and even direct funding. No wonder his numbers went up in 2020 with LBGTQs and Hispanics.

That's why people, especially small businesses, even inner city minority business owners, preferred him, even if they didn't like him and wish he would shut up on most things.

But now it's over. The hard core Trumpers really f'd up, and the left and their oligarchy has a complete 'blank cheque' to do what they want... to all competitors, to all critics, to everyone.

Just like the trading companies did 250 years ago when the taxes were first levied and then the rebellion finally happened. When the redistribution of wealth begins again, once more it won't be the large corporations and monopolies, but the remaining small businesses and those who oppose the next round.

Sigh... It's going to reach the point of revolution the more people have no voice and no recognition of the real issues. Every crisis is another opportunity for the left and it's lobbying monopolies to screw over critics and competitors.

 

[UCFBS]

These platforms don't take away your free speech if you are banned. They are Private companies and they will shut you down if you incite violence or put out statements that are crimes. These platforms are not a free speech mechanism. Also, spreading false information, these companies feel like they need to control this.

Huh? What free speech is a crime? And what is misinformation?

Oh, only speech that doesn't match politics of the left.

If you lie about no minority businesses being burnt down, no buildings burned with people in them, no businesses with exceptions practicing unsafe operations and the like, you're okay, because you're aligned with the narrative.

And you wonder why everyone being targeted is in uproar?

Being a conservative LGBTQ is not hate speech.

Being a Libertarian is not being a Trump supporter.

Banning everyone who is not toting the national media line is not combating misinformation.

Kicking competitors off-line, overnight, without any arbitration or other, objective review is not stopping violence.

This is only going to result in one thing... actual revolution against the Internet-media monopolies that control Congress, just like the North American trading monopolies that controlled Parliament 250 years ago too.

They went after free speech first too, claiming corporate rights as well, even though they were monopolies too.

How well did that work out in the end?

I'm honestly tired of reading about white supremacists being behind everything, and so are an increasing number of minorities being harmed by the national media narrative.

This doesn't end well for the left.

 

[chemmie]

Tl; Dr.

 

[Knight In TN]

Any thoughts on Facebook banning Ron Paul? Because it’s just violence they’re out to stop, right?

 

[Boosted87]

Any thoughts on Facebook banning Ron Paul? Because it’s just violence they’re out to stop, right?

UPDATE: In an email on Monday night, a Facebook spokesperson told Reason that it had mistakenly locked former Rep. Ron Paul's page. "While there were never any restrictions on Ron Paul's page, we restricted one admin's ability to post by mistake. We have corrected the error."​

​

Ron Paul Says He's Been Locked Out of His Account, but Facebook Says It Was a Mistake

No one has a right to a Facebook platform, but purges can and should be criticized.

reason.com

 

[Knight In TN]

UPDATE: In an email on Monday night, a Facebook spokesperson told Reason that it had mistakenly locked former Rep. Ron Paul's page. "While there were never any restrictions on Ron Paul's page, we restricted one admin's ability to post by mistake. We have corrected the error."​

​

Ron Paul Says He's Been Locked Out of His Account, but Facebook Says It Was a Mistake

No one has a right to a Facebook platform, but purges can and should be criticized.

reason.com

That’s good, but I’m not sure I completely buy it. Someone at Facebook is manually blocking pages and just accidentally locked Ron Paul out of running his page?

Either way, accident or not, it’s a reminder that these companies can and will silence anyone they wish to silence. So far it hasn’t been anyone you don’t want silenced, but don’t be naive: one day it will be.

 

[Boosted87]

That’s good, but I’m not sure I completely buy it. Someone at Facebook is manually blocking pages and just accidentally locked Ron Paul out of running his page?

Either way, accident or not, it’s a reminder that these companies can and will silence anyone they wish to silence. So far it hasn’t been anyone you don’t want silenced, but don’t be naive: one day it will be.

I find that many of our opinions on these topics are shaped by what threats we perceive as the most serious. Many were critical of the Patriot Act because they saw the threats to civil liberties as a more dangerous long term risk as opposed to terrorism. I don't discount what you're saying and I'm glad people are saying it because we DO need to understand that.

On the flip side, there is no 1st Amendment to protect if the constitutional order falls. We just witnessed a seditious mob attempt to stop the lawful certification - per the US Constitution - of Biden's victory. That too is a tremendous danger to liberty. If the current President were to stay in power - somehow - through violence - the text of the Constitution would become largely irrelevant.

Now, we can disagree on what threats we see as most serious. I look at this way. If private entities can sufficiently control inciteful speech on the internet, then the calls for radical government reforms will lose momentum. Keeping control out of the hands of government and ensuring speech is regulated by societal market forces. If those private forces fail, you'll see demands for government regulation ramp up.

 

[DaShuckster]

On the flip side, there is no 1st Amendment to protect if the constitutional order falls. We just witnessed a seditious mob attempt to stop the lawful certification - per the US Constitution - of Biden's victory. That too is a tremendous danger to liberty. If the current President were to stay in power - somehow - through violence - the text of the Constitution would become largely irrelevant.

As usual, you NAILED it, Boosted! The above quote, in particular, illustrates the naivety of the hand-wringing counter arguments.

Do we need to be vigilant guardians of free speech? You betcha. But goodness gracious, this is not the time and Trump is not the guy you want to use as your aggrieved poster boy for restricted speech.

 

[Knight In TN]

I find that many of our opinions on these topics are shaped by what threats we perceive as the most serious. Many were critical of the Patriot Act because they saw the threats to civil liberties as a more dangerous long term risk as opposed to terrorism. I don't discount what you're saying and I'm glad people are saying it because we DO need to understand that.

Curious about your opinion here... are you a fan of the Patriot Act? It sounds like you're a supporter of the Patriot Act based on the comparison in defense of the Big Tech purge we've seen in the past week.

On the flip side, there is no 1st Amendment to protect if the constitutional order falls. We just witnessed a seditious mob attempt to stop the lawful certification - per the US Constitution - of Biden's victory. That too is a tremendous danger to liberty. If the current President were to stay in power - somehow - through violence - the text of the Constitution would become largely irrelevant.

Let's not give a bunch of ignorant and mildly violent people without a plan too much credit. They were never a serious danger to liberty; they were a temporary and uncommitted threat to the Capitol building and those inside. It was a tantrum. It was inexcusable. It was criminal. It was dangerous. But those morons did not have any chance of seizing any power.

The current President doesn't have any government support to stay in power. Not a single branch of government is in support of him remaining beyond Biden's inauguration, and that includes the majority of the executive.

Arguing that a hypothetical situation we never got remotely close to (Trump remains in power despite losing the election) is justification for the erosion of the spirit of the First Amendment is flatly absurd.

Now, we can disagree on what threats we see as most serious. I look at this way. If private entities can sufficiently control inciteful speech on the internet, then the calls for radical government reforms will lose momentum. Keeping control out of the hands of government and ensuring speech is regulated by societal market forces. If those private forces fail, you'll see demands for government regulation ramp up.

If private entities were only interested in controlling inciteful speech on the internet I might be in support of that. But dumping Parler outright is not an attempt at controlling inciteful speech in any way I could ever support. It's nuking a platform based on what a small number of people choose to use it for, but effectively stifling not only free speech but also marketplace competition in the process.

The disappointing realization reading through this thread, and your comments in particular, is that cultural support for free speech is dying in America.

 

[Knight In TN]

As usual, you NAILED it, Boosted! The above quote, in particular, illustrates the naivety of the hand-wringing counter arguments.

Do we need to be vigilant guardians of free speech? You betcha. But goodness gracious, this is not the time and Trump is not the guy you want to use as your aggrieved poster boy for restricted speech.

It is ALWAYS the time to protect speech. Not incitements to violence, but that's not all that gets crushed with a kill shot aimed at Parler.

 

[bqknight]

Let's not give a bunch of ignorant and mildly violent people without a plan too much credit. They were never a serious danger to liberty; they were a temporary and uncommitted threat to the Capitol building and those inside. It was a tantrum. It was inexcusable. It was criminal. It was dangerous. But those morons did not have any chance of seizing any power.

Oh - but it's becoming clear that this was not the case. It was a coordinated attack, with planning and clear leaders.

I thought it was an angry mob at first, but this is not the case. It will be VERY interesting to see what comes out in the next couple of days and weeks.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

It is ALWAYS the time to protect speech. Not incitements to violence, but that's not all that gets crushed with a kill shot aimed at Parler.

Parler was shut down because of FBI intelligence of credible threats of domestic terrorism utilizing the service as a means of communication. And more importantly their lack of a moderation policy to quell such threats. Note that other social media were not shut down.

 

[DaShuckster]

It is ALWAYS the time to protect speech.

For some reason I've got the sneaking suspicion that if this was a Gay couple belonging to a fundamentalist church who had the audacity to publicly claim God loves them just the way they are, you'd have no problem with that congregation 'having the right' to kick them out of their church.

When it comes to 'free speech' with you guys, its just a question of who are the ones being kicked.

 

[Knight In TN]

For some reason I've got the sneaking suspicion that if this was a Gay couple belonging to a fundamentalist church who had the audacity to publicly claim God loves them just the way they are, you'd have no problem with that congregation 'having the right' to kick them out of their church.

When it comes to 'free speech' with you guys, its just a question of who are the ones being kicked.

Well now that you’re just assuming things about me, I guess there’s not any point talking to you. After all, you know my thoughts on things already before I tell them to you.

This is why the country is broken.

 

[Boosted87]

Curious about your opinion here... are you a fan of the Patriot Act? It sounds like you're a supporter of the Patriot Act based on the comparison in defense of the Big Tech purge we've seen in the past week.

Generally opposed. I'm pointing out the value of dissenting against government over reach. The Patriot Act was done by government. What we're witnessing today is being done by private actors. Imagining a world where the 9/11 attacks were planned via a public social media platform, I don't think we'd see outrage at Google/Apple/Amazon for disabling that platform in the immediate aftermath.

Let's not give a bunch of ignorant and mildly violent people without a plan too much credit. They were never a serious danger to liberty; they were a temporary and uncommitted threat to the Capitol building and those inside. It was a tantrum. It was inexcusable. It was criminal. It was dangerous. But those morons did not have any chance of seizing any power.

The current President doesn't have any government support to stay in power. Not a single branch of government is in support of him remaining beyond Biden's inauguration, and that includes the majority of the executive.

Arguing that a hypothetical situation we never got remotely close to (Trump remains in power despite losing the election) is justification for the erosion of the spirit of the First Amendment is flatly absurd.

What happened at the Capitol could have been far worse had the mob laid hands on some of the people they were chanting to hang. But I agree with you that - even if this was a genuine coup attempt - it was bound to fail. But here's the thing - this isn't the "end" of this conspiracy filled movement built on a disinformation campaign headed up by POTUS. The risk of right-wing terrorism is legitimate and growing.

I'm not saying this event justified the erosion of the 1st Amendment (even in spirit). I'm saying that in the age of social media, the worst actors with the worst agenda's will use the 1st Amendment as a shield when things go to crap (like on the 6th). If things keep going to crap, the public will lose faith in the 1st Amendment and demand government censor the speech inciting violence. It's far better that a pro-active private sector does this before the people demand government do it.

If private entities were only interested in controlling inciteful speech on the internet I might be in support of that. But dumping Parler outright is not an attempt at controlling inciteful speech in any way I could ever support. It's nuking a platform based on what a small number of people choose to use it for, but effectively stifling not only free speech but also marketplace competition in the process.

The disappointing realization reading through this thread, and your comments in particular, is that cultural support for free speech is dying in America.

So are you saying that Amazon should be forced to host a platform? Should Microsoft? Parlor will find a new home.

But cultural support for the 1st Amendment is not failing. That's like saying that because people don't support someone being allowed to privately own a nuclear warhead, that the right to keep and bear arms is failing. We're just trying to figure out how to deal with disinformation trumpeted from the highest offices in the land that convinces half the public facts aren't real. I don't know how we do that. But THAT is the threat to free speech. Not the people trying to figure out how to stop it.

 

[DaShuckster]

Well now that you’re just assuming things about me...

I was trying to make a general point and apologize for unnecessarily personalizing it. My bad.

If this country is broken, it's because we have a President -- and a multi-million dollar right-wing media sycophant industry behind him -- that are invested in pushing a false narrative on the American People.

 

[UCFBS]

UPDATE: In an email on Monday night, a Facebook spokesperson told Reason that it had mistakenly locked former Rep. Ron Paul's page. "While there were never any restrictions on Ron Paul's page, we restricted one admin's ability to post by mistake. We have corrected the error."​

​

Ron Paul Says He's Been Locked Out of His Account, but Facebook Says It Was a Mistake

No one has a right to a Facebook platform, but purges can and should be criticized.

reason.com

Facebook's 'backtracking' justifications are about as believable as Twitter's. They've both lost all crediblity.

I am completely off of all Social Media other than LinkedIn, and my Twitter feed is largely just LinkedIn, following peer professionals, plus UCF Athletics. I'm done being a Libertarian. I'm completely pulled back and I refuse to condone anything. I will no longer vote for the same reason, just like some Russians during the Soviet.

I.e., no one can say you're 'against' them if you don't vote or promote any of them.

Facebook has mass banned everyone, from conservative LGBTQ groups to various Libertarian organizations. CNN and Facebook Executives are going after moderates and the like. It's absolutely nuts. Banning books, banning media, banning everyone anyone disagrees with.

Video Preface: Even Krystal (Liberal-leaning Moderate) and Saager (Conservative-leaning Moderate) here have higher ratings than daytime CNN. I think this pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with Big Tech and Big Media Monopolies in the US right now.

 

[_glaciers]

you must leave the telescreen on, comrade.